STATE OF U.P. AND ORS V. RAM KHELAWAN AND ORS INSC 401; 1995 JT 306; 1995 SCALE 142

Introduction Issues involving the regularization of temporary employees in the public sector by the Supreme Court of India and the imperativeness of principles of natural justice are well illustrated in the case of State of U.P and Ors v. Ram Khelawan and Ors ((1995). Frequently, issues have confronted the employment rights of temporary employees and the obligations of the state as an employer. Ram Khelawan and others were working in different Government departments as casual labour under the State of U.P. for quite long and are agitating to be regularized. Thereafter, upon their termination, they again filed a writ petition before the High Court of Allahabad. The High Court quashed that termination and directed the respondents to consider regularization in services. By an appeal in the Supreme Court, the State of Uttar Pradesh.

Legal Issues Regularization of Temporary Employees Whether temporary employees have any right to regularization of their services? Principles of natural justice Whether the termination of services, by a simple order without following the proper procedure, was violative of the principles of natural justice? Obligations of the State as an employer To what extent the state is bound to ensure that the conditions of service of the temporary employees are fair and their job security is maintained?

Judgment Regularization of Temporary Employees This was a petition discussed in the Supreme Court pertaining to regularization of temporary employees. The Court found that the respondents had been serving for a considerable period of time, performing the same kind of work regular employees performed. It expressed the view that continued employment of the temporary workers without regularization would amount to exploitation and be against the principles of social justice.

The court has referred to other judgments from its earlier judgments, such as Surinder Singh v. Engineer-in-Chief, CPWD, AIR 1986 SC 494, wherein it had clearly held, like in many similar cases, that the temporary and casual employees cannot be continued in a temporary status for an indeterminate period. The Court has further held that regularisation is necessitated to give job security and to prevent exploitation of the workers who have been serving for a number of years.

The Supreme Court, however only regularized them in a non-matter of right approach. It decides the criteria to be availability of sanctioned posts, the nature of the work performed and the eligibility of the employees for regular appointment. The court also directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to come up with a scheme by which the petitioners, who were eligible temporary employees with regard to the criterion of nature and tenure of the work performed by them, could be regularized, on an overall consideration of all the terms enumerated supra, in a phased manner.

Principles of Natural Justice The Supreme Court emphasized greatly on the saying that the general principles of natural justice in relation to termination of employment require that their services' termination cannot be void of due process. The Court further observed that principles of natural justice enjoin that a workman is entitled to a hearing and to present his case to avoid victimization.

The Court emphasized that procedural fairness is the fundamental aspect of administrative justice, and it is important for safeguarding the rights of an employee. Here, termination of services without fair hearing and proper procedure was taken in arbitrary and unjust.

Obligations of the State as an Employer The Court enumerated the liabilities of the State as an employer to ensure that its employees are dealt with fairly and their jobs are not lost. The State, being an ideal employer, has a Responsibility to observe the concepts of fairness and justice in keeping with the principles of equality in matters of employment. It was observed by the Court that the State has to take positive steps to regularize the temporary employees who have put in several years contiguously and who are performing regular work.

The Court has directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to reinstate the respondents and regularize them thereafter based on the criteria as stated supra. This Court has also directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to henceforth follow the principles of natural justice in employment in any form, termination, or regularization of services. In State of U.P. and Ors v. Ram Khelawan and Ors, the Supreme Court of India pronounced how the mandate of being entitled to regularization and fair treatment directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to reinstate and consider regularization of the respondents based on specific criteria.

Key Takeaways Regularization of Temporary Employees: Temporary employees who are discharging duties similar to those of permanent employees are regularized, subject to certain conditions, namely, the availability of sanctioned posts and eligibility for appointment against regular posts. Principles of Natural Justice: Termination of services by authorities not hearing the case of those service providers is a clear bypass of natural justice. The concerned employee must be given an opportunity of being heard and also be allowed to present his or her case before any adverse action is taken. State as an Employer — Its obligations: The State as a model employer is under an obligation to address and ensure principles of fairness, justice and equality in the matters of employment. State is under an imperative duty to regularize the service of ad hoc/temporary employees working on similar posts and ensure procedural fairness in employment matters. Further Implications State of U.P. judgmentahtar. Again, in George H. Ruddenklau and Ors v. Ram Khelawan and Ors, the latter is seen as a precedent for such cases concerning the rights of an employee of that nature, and the principles of natural justice always apply to employment matters that bind. This only reinforces the yardstick that temporary employees are found performing in normal duties over a long period and are deserving of regularization and fair treatment. What this judgment reiterates is the binding importance of procedural fairness and obligations of the state as an employer.

Summary The decision of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. and Ors v. Ram Khelawan and Ors marked a milestone judgment respecting the rights of temporary workers towards regularization and due treatment. It served to drive home the constitutional mandate pertaining to fairness and procedural justice in employment matters by adhering firmly to the principles of natural justice. The court has given a direction to the State of U.P. to reinstate the respondents and consider their regularization, which will achieve the principles of social justice and ensuring fair treatment in matters of public employment. Such direction in the above said judgment was a reminder to the state authorities that temporary employees are not to be exploited and that fairness and justice are in accord with constitutional precepts.